Cunning Rodney
Rodney Hide has said he will lay a complaint with the Police over Trevor Mallard’s punching Tau Henare, if the Speaker does not refer the issue to the Privileges Committee.
This is a not very subtle form of political blackmail, but it may be effective. Winston Peter’s far less serious “assault” on John Banks was considered by the Privileges Committee in 1997 after all.
If a complaint is laid with the Police, they will have to investigate. And while Mallard would be eligible for diversion, there is a risk they may prosecute.
Now there is a real risk associated with any prosecution. If prosecuted, Mallard would at best get a fine or community service. But the Electoral Act states that if you are convicted of any offence with a greater than two year prison maximum penalty, you automatically lose your seat. And this is regardless of what the actual punishment is.
Mallard would be okay if charged with mere common assault under s196 of the Crimes Act as that has a one year maximum. But “assault with intent to injure” under s193 has a three year maximum and would trigger the Electoral Act.
Now I think that scenario is unlikely but it is not impossible if a complaint is laid with the Police. The most likely outcome is diversion. But does Margaret Wilson want a police investigation into what happened in Parliament?
October 30th, 2007 at 11:06 am
Margaret Wilson is being held to account. For her to say that a brawl in the lobby is outside her jurisdiction really is remarkable. My understanding is that the Speaker is effectively the monarch of the grounds of parliament, and police cannot even enter the precincts without her permission.
She is getting caught out here.
Even if the police refused to prosecute, that would be very embarassing for Labour given the many other prior refusals to prosecute prima facie cases.
October 30th, 2007 at 11:06 am
Rodney is grandstanding. As you, and he, well know.
October 30th, 2007 at 11:11 am
Assault under the Summary Offences Act (six months) is the *only* charge police would seriously consider. I also note that there has already been a complaint to the police, who said they’d only bother looking at the matter is Tau himself complained.
There are other differences with the Banks/Peters case – primarily, IIRC, Banks himself complained; and not only that, the privileges complaint was laid in time.
October 30th, 2007 at 11:13 am
milo – a brawl in the lobbies *is* outside Wilson’s jurisdiction. It is not outside the jurisdiction of the privileges committee.
October 30th, 2007 at 11:13 am
On a TV interview one of Mallard’S constituents said he had laid a complaint with the police, and the police wouldn’t entertain the complaint?
October 30th, 2007 at 11:15 am
The Police won’t prosecute without a complaint from the ‘victim’, Tau hasn’t made a complaint (tha’ts not a legal requirement but in reality it is needed) and even then they won’t prosecute if the assault isn’t found to meet their prosecution guidelines in terms of severity.. and this isn’t much of an assault: neither man was injured, there is dispute as to who made the first assualt (legally, an assault can be the slightest touch and it is said Tau grabbed Mallard’s tie before the first punch), and there was provocation.
Parliament’s rules require privilege compliants to be laid at the earliest opportunity, usually taken to mean before the next sitting of the House – Hide failed to do so… he claims he didn’t know about the altercation until Thursday evening but that’s an obivous lie – no way the leader of a poarty didn’t know aobut this on Wednesday or at elast when its was all over the morning news on thursday.
October 30th, 2007 at 11:16 am
Of couse it’s impossible. The police are instructed how, when and whom to prosecute. This one won’t be in the public interest, yada yada blah
October 30th, 2007 at 11:17 am
milo – a brawl in the lobbies *is* outside Wilson’s jurisdiction. It is not outside the jurisdiction of the privileges committee
Thanks Graeme.
October 30th, 2007 at 11:18 am
KK – tin hat time?
The Police do not procesute minor offences, its a waste of resources
- a minor assualt over which the ‘victim’ (who may in fact have commited the first assualt) does not want charges laid is simply not worth the police resources.
October 30th, 2007 at 11:21 am
All I can say is it’s the start of the campaign again…. Not a word from Rodney for 2 years and of course Winnie started in the weekend as well.
October 30th, 2007 at 11:25 am
seems Hide is just digging for more dirt on the Government and forfeiting any sense of practicality. No surprises really…
October 30th, 2007 at 11:25 am
Now if Trevor had crushed Tau under a tractor while riding it up the steps of Parliament, I;m sure there would be a prosecution…
October 30th, 2007 at 11:27 am
And if the fist had been on the other arm we can bet our little Socialist supporters would be frothing at the mouth for the Police to lay charges.
Two faced arseholes the lot of you
October 30th, 2007 at 11:28 am
sam, do you honestly believe that our police force are free from political intervention? Really? If yes, I’d say you were naive.
October 30th, 2007 at 11:28 am
punching someone in the face is not a minor offence!!!!!!
jesus!
it may be grandstanding by rodney but im just happy hes doing SOMETHING. hes been one lazy ass MP this term
October 30th, 2007 at 11:32 am
As mentioned in a previous thread, forget all the legal technicalities. It’s really simple. How can the government be taken seriously on non-violence, spending $14 million on a non-violence campaign AND keep Mallard after this?
They either have to sack him or cancel the campaign – it’s a waste of $14 million otherwise.
You can’t expect everyone to agree “it’s never ok” if it’s actually ok in some instances. It just clears the way for everyone to take a Mallard defense when they get a bit bothered. Put up or shut up.
If he isn’t AT LEAST sacked, Henare has an OBLIGATION to beaten kids, wives and whomever all over NZ to press charges. I don’t care what buttons he pushed or how hard. It’s never OK, remember? If he doesn’t press charges, Henare is as responsible as Mallard for greenlighting more violence in NZ. Should beaten wives and kids accept an apology too? Like it or not, their actions will set a precedence.
Sack him or you might as well say violence is actually ok in some cases.
And hasn’t Bradford said anything? Speaking of setting causes back a few years…
October 30th, 2007 at 11:39 am
Bradfords crawled back under the rock she inhabits too gutless to come out and speak the truth
More of the 2 faced arsehole behaviour we have to put up with
October 30th, 2007 at 11:42 am
i’d love to see the media give bradford an, ahem, opportunity to comment on the biff. are they as gutless as she?
October 30th, 2007 at 11:42 am
Rodney has also made a breach of parliamentary priviledge complaint: http://www.act.org.nz/breach_of_privilege_complaint_against_hon_trevor_mallard
October 30th, 2007 at 11:43 am
Why are the Police so keen to give me a Traffic Infringement Notice for driving 10kmh over the limit, and yet won’t investigate the most public act of violence in recent NZ history?
October 30th, 2007 at 11:45 am
You will have noticed Tariana Turia’s little winge about the police taking action against Mallard and their response – “However, a police national headquarters spokesman today told NZPA that police would be extremely unlikely to investigate the incident without a complaint and to his knowledge Wellington police, who would be responsible, had not received one”.
TV illustrated police’s Double Standards. Re the assault – Police made it clear that the complaint lodged by one of Mallard’s constituents would not receive any attention as the complaint had to be lodged by Tau Henare.
So where does Helen Clark stand in view of her statement: “It is the responsibility of every citizen to report wrong doing to the appropriate authorities and it will be investigated”. (Includes baby smacking?).
So police don’t consider punch ups as wrong doing, if complained of by uninvolved people? So police condone violence, unless the victim lodges the complaint him/herself. So, unless a child lodges a complaint of assault, the police will do nothing? (We know they will take notice of reported child abuse).
Mr Hide said it made more sense for the privileges committee to deal with the incident, rather than the police having to deal with an assault claim made by a member of the public.
Asked why he was pursuing the matter when Mr Mallard had apologised and both MPs had been given stern tellings-off by their respective leaders, Mr Hide said Parliament needed to send a strong message “that you cannot go around thumping people”.
October 30th, 2007 at 11:50 am
Reg, it’s because you paying the fine actually increases the amount of gold in Cullen’s coffers rather than reducing it for media-hyped but petty court cases.
krazykiwi, there’s no point in police intervening on a case where a case hasn’t been lodged by either party on the grounds of hearsay and an over-zealous media
October 30th, 2007 at 12:08 pm
TMC and Frank – well said, especially:
He’s goneburger at the next election regardless.
October 30th, 2007 at 12:20 pm
The Police can’t prosecute – Mallard is a member of the Labour party.
October 30th, 2007 at 12:22 pm
By percentages it would seem that the number of members of Parliament who will commit assault is 43.15 times greater than the number of police who historically rape women. And this needs no expensive inquiry or any report by Dame Margaret Bazley to establish, so why is there not a three ring circus hosted by Helen Clark in the Beehive to apologise to the nation for this outrage and to admit that a culture of aggression, negativity and downright un-Christian behaviour [despite the Prayer] has existed since at least the late sixties, and still exists, and unlike the police culture of the eighties, shows every sign of increasing rather than diminishing.
October 30th, 2007 at 12:31 pm
Wilson is taking a cute interpreation of the rules. Why is it that this woman finds a way to let the Labour Party off the hook all the time. So long as the complaint is made within the next sitting day then that should be valid. To requite the complaint made by 2 pm the next day is taking thngs too far. Of course this needs to be cleared up and Wilson should let the air be cleared before the privileges committee.
October 30th, 2007 at 12:35 pm
It’s a Summary Common Assault at best (6 months). Diversion written all over it, even if it made it to Court there would be reasonable grounds for a s106 discharge – especially if he is doing some anger management work. Even if convicted I would suggest a small fine and a telling off – maybe some reparation for emotional harm to the victim (although I am not convinced Tau is particularly harmed, emotionally or otherwise).
October 30th, 2007 at 12:39 pm
Sam Dixon –
The Police do not procesute minor offences, its a waste of resources
- a minor assualt over which the ‘victim’ (who may in fact have commited the first assualt) does not want charges laid is simply not worth the police resources.
BOLLOCKS
The Police have ample resources if they can send three burly men to interview the mother of a child who had been pinged by a neighbour for smacking her child.
Now where has that investigation into stolen emails gone? methinks the tinfoil hat call might be a bit prem.
October 30th, 2007 at 12:41 pm
dime
“it may be grandstanding by rodney but im just happy hes doing SOMETHING. hes been one lazy ass MP this term”
Bollocks. Rodney’s Regulatory Responsibility bill is potentially the most significant piece of legislation since the reserve Bank Act.
October 30th, 2007 at 12:48 pm
Gosh it’s hilarious that you are all so in favour of beating helpless children, but think its a heinous crime that two very fit and strong grown men biff each other.
It begins with H.
October 30th, 2007 at 12:48 pm
How is Rodney doing at being in parliament and voting these days?
October 30th, 2007 at 12:51 pm
“The Police have ample resources if they can send three burly men to interview the mother of a child who had been pinged by a neighbour for smacking her child”
I’d say the very sensitive political situation had some influence in this case. Also when there were a number of complaints made against the mother by neighbours and the school.
But as childish you may perceive Tau and Mallard are, they are indeed adults and is not a case of someone with more power and authority bullying someone weaker (parent vs child).
Certainly some sort of disciplinary hearing and slap on the hand or dismissal is needed of course.
But why waste police resources on a petty biff case when you’d rather have them out there catching rapists, murderers, and child beaters. Otherwise it brings in the question should all assaults be brought to the police including drunken disorderly that occurs every fri/sat night in town in every city.
October 30th, 2007 at 12:53 pm
You can be sure if Mallard had the upper hand another Maori would be a gone burger from parliament.
With the exception of hua Huata who took the kids money (and is now never the less on a sth akld youth council because Maori memories are utterly selective, neurotic and dysfunctional) too many Maori have been
disenfranchised from having a political voice.
Yeaaa, Maori party and democracy.
And we’ll forget about Alamein Kopu. Her slip up was just either forgetful or plain lazy. Maori have no idea about priorities. You can’t stay on Maori time in the Pakeha world.
And Jim Bolger was right when Maori should have said thank you for the treaty settlements brokered by National. Maori don’t have to thank each other but they do have to thank the National govt.
and I’ve already talked about Rob and Bastion point.
October 30th, 2007 at 12:56 pm
Davemc – it’s even more hilarious that a cabinet minister in the government which argued that violence is not okay at all in respect of s 59 (not that a smack is violence) now uses violence to resoove a dispute.
That has a bigger ‘H’.
October 30th, 2007 at 12:56 pm
I find it interesting saying that the police will not prosecute without a complaint.
From what I know, assault type offences are regarded as offences against the state, not the person (don’t know if I have used the right legal terms here, but you get the drift). So even without the person complaining, if the police are aware of the offence they should investigate (and prosecute if deemed required). To say “we will not” seams strange. Given the high profile nature of the events, the police certainly have a reasonable cause to investigate (since its very likely it happened). I would understand if they said “we can not prosecute without a witness” but from what I have read Tau was not the only one present.
I think they should *investigate* if they then deem no prosecution possible, then so be it.
That’s my 2c.
October 30th, 2007 at 12:57 pm
David, there is a greater chance of you waking one morning to discover Elle Mcpherson and Nicole Kidman in your bed than a labour minister being charged with anything. After all Helen did not destroy Doone and work her magic through the Police HQ over the last few years to see fists of fury mallard succumb to normal civilian justice.
October 30th, 2007 at 1:00 pm
there is a greater chance of you waking one morning to discover Elle Mcpherson and Nicole Kidman in your bed than a labour minister being charged with anything.
Well, Taito Philip Field is facing serious charges and he was a Labour minister. The charges relate to when he was a minister. Also, Ruth Dyson was charged and convicted of drunk driving.
October 30th, 2007 at 1:01 pm
“..it may be grandstanding by rodney but im just happy hes doing SOMETHING. hes been one lazy ass MP this term.”
that’s because he’s been cultivating the genteel folks in his epsom constituency..
(that is why he now ‘speaks the way he does’..
he’s soaked up all that afternoon tea ettiquette..
learning what they want him to say..
and he’s now even outdone keith locke in the epsom-afternoon-tea-suitability-stakes..
i’ll betcha rodney (now) knows how to crock a finger..eh..?
..and the ‘does and don’ts’ of cucumber-sandwich consumption..)
and that’s not silly..he knows he has snowballs chance of cracking 5%..
but..in his defence..
he is against both the poxy tewwowwist-legislation..
and the poxy electoral-reform bill..
and ‘bless him!’ for that..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
October 30th, 2007 at 1:05 pm
ManukauMum; Thanks for raising awareness of Rodney’s Privileges Committee Complaint. A good common sense argument worthy of Peter Dunne?
October 30th, 2007 at 1:06 pm
Rodney is actually quite busy. As to whether the media pay any attention is an entirely different matter. Ask the people of Epsom whether their new MP is a more or less effective constituency representative than their old.
My impression is that the work the minor parties do doesn’t change that much whether it is election season or not, what changes is the media attention. Both because minor parties matter more at elections (and mostly get ignored the rest of the time) and because they are obliged to show some balance (which they don’t do the rest of the time).
October 30th, 2007 at 1:07 pm
busy dancing…
October 30th, 2007 at 1:12 pm
i notice that gerry ‘bouncer’ brownlee has been very schtum on the mallard/henare parliametary lobby cage-fight..
and hey..!
henare grabbed mallards tie before mallard decked him..
(i didn’t know that..!.)
and we all know a wannabe-alpha-males’ whole being is connected to the penile substitute/symbol that is his tie..
(i mean..they lovingly stroke them so often..!..)
so..really..henare grabbed mallard by his dick..(and if up by his kneck (adams apple!) by his gonads..
and twisted it/them..(!)
what male..save for yr submissive masochist..(um..!..which mp was that again..?..something about nappy-wearing and sluts..?..)
..would not lash out at such a challenge to his manhood..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
October 30th, 2007 at 1:15 pm
You stroke your tie phil? Sounds a bit unusual.
October 30th, 2007 at 1:33 pm
Labour are like the NZ mafia… as if the police are going to do anything.
October 30th, 2007 at 1:33 pm
cv
You miss the point rather. During the S59 debate, the police affirmed that they were obliged to investigate any and every violence complaint regardless. At the time, this comment was contrasteed with the claim that police were short of manpower.
Funny that a very public exhibition of violence and at least one reported complaint, has elicited a response of “no action” from the same police force.
As Richard pointed out, the least they should do is investigate and then say they would not prosecute.
To say that they will not even investigate is curious to say the least.
October 30th, 2007 at 1:34 pm
Dear Leaders Office to : Howdy Broad
From DPMC: Selma PA to H1 and H2
CC to :Trev and Sharons
:Roger Gnome and Sam Dixon
Bc: Brenda Lawsies
Bc: Mrs Mallard
“Howdy” old chap please ensure that you keep the Tuhoe terrorist thing going today.
First I slipped out the napalm thing accidentally on purpose and I don’t want to be acting pre-judice on the rat bags case I was just trying to help you cause it was getting a little hot for you. But please make sure that Treovors case keeps out of your system and if you want to get some back up I suggest you get in touch with Crown Law for an opinion (they were really helpful about the EFB)
Cheers Helen ,
October 30th, 2007 at 1:45 pm
“You miss the point rather. During the S59 debate, the police affirmed that they were obliged to investigate any and every violence complaint regardless. At the time, this comment was contrasteed (sic) with the claim that police were short of manpower”
keyword being complaint
to the best of my knowledge (i’ve been wrong before) no complaint has been made to the police as yet. what you read transcribed from the tongues of witnesses or journo’s may not necessarily yield as a complaint.
October 30th, 2007 at 1:46 pm
Isn’t there a protocol between the NZ Police and the Speaker specifying each other’s jurisdictions?
October 30th, 2007 at 2:07 pm
DDD – yes I think the protocol is that if you say you won’t do anything then we will say the same – does that sound right ?
October 30th, 2007 at 2:18 pm
Through all the humour, general mystification and outrage exhibited in this thread, one point is glaringly obvious: correspondents now routinely lack confidence that NZ has a truly independent Police force – i.e. one free of Executive direction or influence over decisions to investigate or prosecute (alleged) criminal behaviour.
That sad outcome is the inevitable product of senior Police appointments under the Clark Government, and prosecution decisions that appear to have been less than even-handed where political figures have been involved in a practical sense.
It is too difficult now for the incumbent Government to repair the lack of confidence shown in the independence of the Police, even if it wanted to. But for a future Government (even a Labour-lead one) there is a positive social dividend to be gained from restoring standards of integrity and good character throughout the management and ranks of the Police force. And from re-instating and entrenching freedom from political influence of Police decision-making.
October 30th, 2007 at 2:25 pm
I think it’s got more to do with people trying to score points on this blog than an actual mistrust in the Police, calendargirl.
If most people were honest, thay’d think it’s a crock of shite that the police are directly influenced by the Executive and Government, the rest have some…pretty strong opinions, and I’d be questioning their neutrality, not that of the police!!!
October 30th, 2007 at 2:26 pm
TMC contributed this above:
“Henare has an OBLIGATION to beaten kids, wives and whomever all over NZ to press charges. I don’t care what buttons he pushed or how hard. It’s never OK, remember? If he doesn’t press charges, Henare is as responsible as Mallard for greenlighting more violence in NZ. Should beaten wives and kids accept an apology too? Like it or not, their actions will set a precedence.”
An excellent angle!
Let Tau be the “beaten Kiwi” poster boy..:)
October 30th, 2007 at 2:43 pm
It’s a good thing Mallard punched Henare, rather than smacking him
October 30th, 2007 at 3:38 pm
I decided yesterday when I read of a woman being visited by 3 policemen to investigate a complaint re smacking, that Mallard had to face all possible action – so Ive sent off a complaint to the Commissioner of police laying a complaint of assault by one Trevor Mallard – Minister for sport as his action in assaulting one Tau henare in the House of Parliament is not just a bad personal example, but as a senior minister leading anti violence campaigns his action has to be demonstrated as being totally unacceptable.
Ill be interested to see what happens.
October 30th, 2007 at 3:44 pm
FP – I’ll put you down as a ‘Believes police are never directed by the Labour government’. I’ll also tick the naive box.
October 30th, 2007 at 3:45 pm
barry, i’ll be interested in the outcome… but don’t hold your breath waiting for it.
October 30th, 2007 at 4:01 pm
davemc said “Well, Taito Philip Field is facing serious charges and he was a Labour minister. The charges relate to when he was a minister. Also, Ruth Dyson was charged and convicted of drunk driving.”
TPF was still “on the inside”, until he rained on Dear Leader’s parade at the start of the year. Until then, she had stuck to him like poop to a blanket – then all of a sudden, the blanket didn’t smell so good, and was cast aside.
October 30th, 2007 at 4:05 pm
Barry, please let us know.
Recent postages on this subject have highlighted the point that the Police did in fact say that they are obliged to investigate any complaint, when the smacking debate etc was rolicking along (and they did re the mum and the smack on the front page of the SST on Sunday).
So the Police statement that they wont now seems, if at odds with previous statements, in need of serious explanation. Lest their cred sag again.
October 30th, 2007 at 4:06 pm
KK, you tick all the boxes you want. Don’t forget the one about checking for Commies under your pillow, and any other conspiracy theories that tickle your fancy.
Are you saying that everyone in the police is a die-hard Labour supporter?
October 30th, 2007 at 5:11 pm
The amount of ignorance by certain parties who have suddenly become experts on law and when the Police should and should not prosecute in this thread is outstanding.
The reason Police investigate all incidents of alleged child abuse one would hope would be rather obvious to people and how a comparison can be made to this case is boggling.
Now to substantiate a complaint of assault in this instance the Police need a victim of the assault to obviously make a complaint and be prepared to follow that through, i.e making a statement and being prepared to give that evidence in court to a Judge. If there is no statement and no evidence forthcoming on what grounds exactly do you want Police to prosecute on? And no cos Rodney Hide wants them too is not sufficient grounds.
That would look fantastic in court the Judge would ask Police if there was a victim, they would state no, he would then ask on what basis or evidence they prosecuted Mr Mallard and they would then have to respond, well Rodney Hide wanted to make a Political point so we ignored all basic principles of justice and fairness just to oblige him. At which point the Judge would be promptly dismissing the charges and giving the Police a major bollocking in turn attracting much negative publicity toward them as well as allegations of being politicians pawns.
October 30th, 2007 at 5:19 pm
FighterPilott Says “Are you saying that everyone in the police is a die-hard Labour supporter?”
No!!!!! Only every wanna be Police Commissioner since Doone.
Is my statement correct? Well so far looks pretty spot on to me.
Its going to take a lot of work to get back the public confidence that H1 has squandered for her own purposes..
Clearly won’t happen till there’s a change of government.
October 30th, 2007 at 5:22 pm
jean – that sounds pretty much what the judge said about the trumped-up charge that the police brought against Shane Arderne – a case the police didn’t want to touch because they knew it was doomed to fail – but were “encouraged” to prosecute nonetheless. And Clark has made a mockery of fairness and natural justice with her unfortunate comments about the Tuhoe 17:
“The activists rounded up in police anti-terror raids had been training to use napalm, Prime Minister Helen Clark confirmed yesterday.
Her comment was the first official admission of previously unconfirmed reports about napalm being used at activists’ training camps in the Ureweras.
Clark’s comment yesterday – that those arrested “at the very least” had been training with firearms and napalm – was also unusual, in that she was discussing cases currently before the courts.”
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4254767a11.html
October 30th, 2007 at 5:29 pm
Clark is simply pursuing the agenda she began when she rubber-stamped the initial action – to do a number on the Maori Party. Now with her ‘attack-poodle’ Winston Peters in tow, she can throw up her hands in mock horror at his ‘apartheid’ statements, but still issue statements that are prejudicial to a fair trial, and issue her instructions via the media to anyone who might be tempted to apply the rule of law as it is supposed to be applied. – “Lay off – this is a beltway issue!”
October 30th, 2007 at 5:33 pm
jean I dont think thats quite right.
Who would make the complaint in a case of murder or manslaughter? The victim?
Or what about in the case of gang-style beatings when the victim is too injured or scared to complain?
silly
I am no expert (though I used to be a solicitor). What I was getting at above is that there is some confusion on complaints and investigations and policies on each etyc.
October 30th, 2007 at 5:34 pm
Inventory you might find that the Maori party and other left commentators have said far worse that that, stating that the arrestee’s are clearly innocent comparing it to Parihaka of all things and that the Police have set back race relations some 100 odd years. In comparison to that Clarks comments seem more than refrained and if anything add some needed balance in the debate vs all the hysteria coming from the Maori party.
October 30th, 2007 at 5:36 pm
FighterPilott
You’re trying to put misleading words in people’s mouths; nobody’s remotely suggesting that “everyone in the police is a die-hard Labour supporter”. The sole concern here is about Poice decision-making at senior management level on whether to prosecute in “sensitive” cases (i.e. those affecting political figures).
Several Government politicians have been spared prosecution despite Police conclusions of prima facie wrongdoing (or in Field’s case nothing begins to move until even the PM gives up the fight to defend her man). Yet Opposition politicians like Smith and Ardern have been arraigned in court with apparently no greater justification. Forgive us therefore if we become sceptical about constitutional independence of the Police in practice.
Feel free to ignore potential signs of erosion of constitutional safeguards if you wish. I simply don’t share your blind trust in political virtue.
October 30th, 2007 at 5:40 pm
jean that s an interesting balance – I have to agree. Except, why was it necessary for her to pronounce on it at all when a simple ‘No commment’ might have been more appropriate, given that she must have known the police were going to move on this?
Unike the Maori Party or the Greens (such good close allies of the Labour Party) who were completely blindsided by this series of events.
If you want to set up a situation then accuse the victims of it of hysteria, fine, but let’s keep our eye on the facts. Especially as ‘race relations’ have now become fodder for Peter’s next election drive, and by implication, Helen’s too.
October 30th, 2007 at 5:48 pm
“Well, Taito Philip Field is facing serious charges and he was a Labour minister. ”
He is also a brown minister which is the point of my own comments on this thread
October 30th, 2007 at 5:54 pm
You might also ask why the Maori party didn’t simply say ‘no comment until the facts and evidence are revealed’ yet instead made hysterical and inflammatory claims that its a racist beat up by the Police. I think her comments need to be seen in response to that, rather than in isolation. Certainly given that the threats were against her and that she was informed of them then to have those threats dismissed by other politicians who haven’t a clue such as Pita Sharples and Hone Harawira. And I don’t think either the greens or maori partycould be considered good close allies, maybe necessary allegiances but certainly not based out of friendship.
If anything I think the response to the Maori Parties ignorant and racist claims has been reasonable.
October 30th, 2007 at 7:21 pm
jean said “Inventory you might find that the Maori party and other left commentators have said far worse that that, stating that the arrestee’s are clearly innocent comparing it to Parihaka of all things and that the Police have set back race relations some 100 odd years. In comparison to that Clarks comments seem more than refrained and if anything add some needed balance in the debate vs all the hysteria coming from the Maori party.”
Agreed up to a point jean – however, with the passing of the second reading of the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill on Wednesday, the role of the PM takes on far more serious connotations. The Prime Minister will be the ultimate arbiter of who is, and who is not a terrorist. That puts Helen Clark’s widely reported comments at yesterday’s press conference in a much different light. It’s interesting too that Dear Ledaer frequently refuses to comment when asked questions in the House due to the matter “being before the Courts”. IMHO, she should have taken the same tack last night.
October 30th, 2007 at 7:39 pm
calendar girl – well said.
October 30th, 2007 at 7:43 pm
I was told ages ago that Police do not divert for violent crime, including assault.
October 30th, 2007 at 8:36 pm
“…however, with the passing of the second reading of the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill on Wednesday, the role of the PM takes on far more serious connotations. The Prime Minister will be the ultimate arbiter of who is, and who is not a terrorist. That puts Helen Clark’s widely reported comments at yesterday’s press conference in a much different light.”
But puts her signing off on the original action in the same light?
October 30th, 2007 at 8:38 pm
“If a complaint is laid with the Police, they will have to investigate. And while Mallard would be eligible for diversion, there is a risk they may prosecute.”
The risk is zero.
The Police dont have to investigate if the victim has not laid a complaint. They might do, but there is not compulsion.
Unless Tau wants to have his day in court this is going nowhere. Sorry to disappoint.
October 30th, 2007 at 8:47 pm
genuine question… are crimes defined individually with some requiring victim complaints and other simply requiring sufficient evidence to bring a prosecution?
October 30th, 2007 at 8:49 pm
Lee C – interesting eh! And why has no-one in the MSM asked or commented about why Cullen (in his capacity as A-G) has duck-shoved the approval to prosecute under the TSA to the Solicitor-General?
October 30th, 2007 at 8:56 pm
“genuine question… are crimes defined individually with some requiring victim complaints and other simply requiring sufficient evidence to bring a prosecution?”
Not that I am aware of. But if Tau doesnt lay a complaint then the police wont investigate.
Suppose a 10 year old hits his 11 year old brother over a toy….are the Police supposed to investigate?
October 30th, 2007 at 9:06 pm
Sorry..but we definitely have an independent witness, the security guard who separated the two. We probably also have camera footage if the money spent on the new security system is worth a damn (probably not).
Mallard would have to commit perjury to avoid being found guilty of minor assault.
If it was a domestic violence complaint against a woman we wouldn’t waste two lines of text debating whether the police should act on a complaint.
October 30th, 2007 at 10:06 pm
“If it was a domestic violence complaint against a woman we wouldn’t waste two lines of text debating whether the police should act on a complaint.”
in a domestic violence case the police will interview the victim, but if the victim refuses to press charges they wont do it despite her.
DPF is talking out a hole.
October 30th, 2007 at 10:10 pm
Interview the victim natural party of govt regardless if the female victim is telling lies against the male perpetrator . False allegations are sufficient for immediate police arrest regarding dv incidents . I suppose you could say it was a dv incident , a ruffled duck smacks a hen in a nanny state run chookhouse ??
October 30th, 2007 at 10:42 pm
“False allegations are sufficient for immediate police arrest regarding dv incidents ”
Yes, so long as it is the victim that complains.
October 30th, 2007 at 10:48 pm
But when they are false allegations who becomes the victim wearing handcuffs then into cell ? Don’t answer please natural party of govt.
Anyway back to the thread , will clever trevor be arrested for bringing parliament into disrepute ? Violence is violence – eh Auntie Helen and Smacking Sue ??
October 30th, 2007 at 10:52 pm
Well suppose there is a boxing match in town? Do the Police go and arrest both contestants? No, because the two participants have agreed to hit each other.
Until Tau Henare makes a complaint thats where it stands.
October 30th, 2007 at 10:56 pm
FighterPilott: There’s plenty of prima facie evidence of directives from the Ministry of Police to the Office of the Commissioner, to just file the complaint they are forwarding.
October 30th, 2007 at 11:35 pm
OK – and the next time I see a scrap on the sportsfield (is also a workplace) I’ll lay a complaint with the Police and “they will have to investigate”
Yeah Right – wrong presumption – not “cunning”
October 30th, 2007 at 11:50 pm
Really good role model here – Minister of Sport and Recreation please note:
from livescoringdottvnzdotetc
“42 mins: Mealamu finds Williams in the lineout, he gets the bal back on the short side but drops the pass into touch. Bit of a scrap going on in the following the lineout. Hayman is called out and is sent to the sinbin for throwing a punch”
Poor Hayman – had you played this game in NZ you would be the subject of a “Police Investigation”
October 31st, 2007 at 12:56 am
“…There’s plenty of prima facie evidence of directives from the Ministry of Police to the Office of the Commissioner, to just file the complaint they are forwarding.”
Frank, do you have actual copies of these directives that you could share with the rest of us, or are you blessing us with the results of some sort of divine apparition?
“…but we definitely have an independent witness, the security guard who separated the two.” This horrendous assault was actually broken up by a 70kg semi-retired Maori translator.
“…The Police have ample resources if they can send three burly men to interview the mother of a child who had been pinged by a neighbour for smacking her child.”
The police call taker would have received a call from the informant alleging assault on a child, and would probably have also mentioned the mother’s acknowledged “excitable” bahaviour. They may well have done a check on the address, and found that the address was one they had been to in the past, or that the alleged offender had a noting for family violence, and responded accordingly. A fairly typical response from the police.
October 31st, 2007 at 8:38 am
johnno; I certainly have copies of directives from The Minister of Police to the Office of the Police Commissioner. Directives also from the Attorney-General Hon Michael Cullen to the Police Commissioner saying: “For your information”. Subject matter Corruption
Believe it or not most MPS from Helen Clark down also have copies,
My submission on the EFB contained copies of Police Documents that showed they deliberately buried a complaint of misappropriation of Helen’s Leader’s Funds. So the Select Committee on the EFB has good examples of the allegations of preventing and defeating the course of justice, that were placed before them.
October 31st, 2007 at 9:16 am
johnno: I have scanned copies, but they don’t post on this website. Sorry.
However: Date Stamp Received
4 Jun 2003
3 June 2003 Police HQ
Executive Services
Ministerial Services
Office of the Commissioner
The attached papers refer to alleged fraud, corruption (Public Sector).
No reply is required to this correspondence.
For filing please./Link with pps.
Gerry Cunneen
Adviser (Police)